5/10/2006

A decision that will ‘hit you where you live!’
Four candidates vie for two OPA director’s seats
Commentary by Bob Lassahn

With an early announcement from Ray Unger, an unsuccessful candidate in the 2005 Ocean Pines Association (OPA) election, two newcomers to the race and a confirmation from sitting director Mark Venit that he intends to run for re-election the total is now up to four potential candidates in the coming election. The two newcomers to the race are Carmine “Joe” Cericola and Bill Zawacki.

The OPA bylaws require two candidates for each available position. This year the terms of directors Mark Venit and George “Wally” Coleburn expire. Mr. Venit was elected to the board in 2003 for a full three year term and Mr. Coleburn in 2004 to the remaining two years left on of the term of Joe Pastore, who resigned in June 2004. Mr. Coleburn has determined not to seek re-election to his seat.

The deadline for those seeking to have the nominating committee put their names in play expired on May 5. The nominating committee has yet to deliver their candidate list to the association secretary, but unless a candidate has either failed to pay their assessment or some other outstanding monetary obligation to the association, or has a continuing Architectural Review Committee (ARC) violation the four are pretty much assured nomination. Failing someone slipping in under the radar the nominating committee slate is set. The list must be delivered not less than 90 days before the annual meeting. After the May 5 cut off date additional candidates may file a petition bearing the signatures of at least 100 voting members of the association not less than 60 days before the date of the annual meeting.

Last year the field of candidates was considerably greater, with 10 at the high water mark and a finishing field of nine. Also on the 2005 ballot was a hotly debated referendum question to determine if a new community center might be in OPA’s future and it proved to be one driving force in the election issues. Of the nine finishers only one was opposed to the new community center and that person, Janet Kelley, emerged as the second highest vote getter in the race to claim a seat on the board.

What a difference a year makes. While the 2005 election was a real horse race the 2006 barely made the required threshold for candidates. Any individual could certainly articulate a broad range of valid reasons not to run for the board, but the low candidate turnout leaves plenty of room to speculate that the divisive issues facing OPA could be working some magic.

The board has not only been taking some hostile fire from the community, but the interactions of the board members themselves have sometimes been heated. Personal shots flying between directors are not at all uncommon even during public meetings and while differing opinions are a healthy thing for such groups, the underlying questions of motivation is not something that encourages constructive debate.

OPA has an uphill battle in the months and years ahead and it takes a committed individual to jump into the fray. The already heated issues of both the old and new community centers, Swim and Racquet Club (S&R) marina expansion and drainage problems are only the tip of the iceberg. Simmering on the back burners are a number of other items including an enclosure to convert the S&R pool to an indoor, year-round facility and decisions regarding guidelines for the Environmental Controls Committee and ARC operational procedures. Given the perceived bumbling by the board on some current issues such as the new community center and S&R marina almost anything they undertake is likely going to go under a microscope.

Candidates in the current OPA election are probably going to be asked some hard questions about how they might address the current issues and how they intend to work at winning back the credibility of the board. Any single issue candidate with some personal agenda is going to face an uphill battle, any who might be perceived as marching in “lockstep” to current board policy, procedures and positions will be suspect and any with new and innovative projects in mind could find the voters already in overload mode. It is going to be a challenge to find solid ground from which to launch a successful bid.

Mr. Venit, the only incumbent in the race faces a double whammy. Regardless of his efforts, position or contributions to OPA during his term he is now associated with what many voters might consider as failures on the part of the board. It boils down to guilt by association. He must be able to convince voters that he will be effective in working some new strategies to make the current situations improve and that he can separate himself from a continuation of the “status quo.” No easy task, but Mr. Venit does have something of a track record as one who never hesitates to stir things up a bit. Time will tell if that will win him votes.

OPA is a diverse community and the property owners who cast their votes for directors are not readily predictable on issues. I’ve previously regurgitated my position about “the people,” that intangible majority that everyone cites as the basis for their position on a topic. The people actually speak in many tongues and gaining insight as to what they are really saying is a talent. What it comes down to is an ability to see beyond what the most vocal and active members might advocate and to strike a chord with the majority of the actual voters. The two groups may not coincide regarding their wants and needs in a candidate. There is no crystal ball to aid a candidate in making that determination.

The greatest challenge for the voter is getting beyond the campaign rhetoric to find a candidate they trust to be sincere, hard working and committed. The age old tactic of promising everything without the intent to back up those promises could find its way even into an election by a homeowner association. Voters beware of the hollow promise or catchy phrase that is put in play to garner support.

Even if a promise is made with full intent to follow through it is sometimes difficult to bring a campaign pledge to fruition when working against a solid majority in opposition. Statesmanship, vision and determination are therefore qualities that might register high on a voter’s list of preferences. But measuring such qualities could be difficult because it involves separating truth from a bit of good old-fashioned tap dancing. Voters don’t have a crystal ball either.

The coming months will be interesting for anyone with a penchant to involve themselves in OPA “politics.” There will be ample opportunity for every candidate to either rise above the pack, or stumble over his own feet. Following the OPA election process is worthwhile for those who have invested their hard earned money in property within the community. After all when you elect a director to the OPA board it “hits you where you live!”


Send an Email Letter to Courier Editor - be sure to include your telephone number.